Trump can't win even with Ohio,Florida,New York and Texas

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

The pic is edited, couldn't say why. The 270/267 is not connected to the map.

Can someone please explain me why things are so complicated in US voting system?

Why can't they just add up the numbers of votes from every state and in the end just compare the numbers?

>Can someone please explain me why things are so complicated in US voting system?

for the same reason someone who just dropped the boat from syria can walk into mcdonalds and buy a machine gun

The States cast the votes, not the people. Each state has chosen to cast its votes according to the popular vote (Maine and Nebraska split their votes by congressional district, but nowhere else does).

>israel
>digits

what did (((he))) mean by this?

it's a very old system, it should probably be replaced

If we control everything,it means we control meme magic too.

It would still be blue even with only white people you stupid cunt.

Do you think this is better than my proposed system?

I think I remember the idea coming up several times and going nowhere because low population states would be completely subservient to high population states.

Yes.

praise (((((Kek))))))

It then eliminates the power of the states, theoretically if candidiate a won 49 of 50 states by 1 vote in each state, and candiidate b one the last state by 50 votes who deserves to win?

Adding onto According to the population numbers from enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml

The 10 most populated states could win a majority vote over the remaining 40. There's no way the senate would approve.

> won 49 of 50

Those are %. I was talking about number of votes. Add all numbers and compare the final sums.

I'm a retard. sorry :)) i'll get back to you in a min

Texan here - everyone I know thinks trump is an idiot. They were even making fun of him in line to vote at the primaries. So , I don't see him taking Texas. Not only that but we have a shat load of Hispanics here who vote so - yea.

So from the first 49 states the cand. A will have a 49points advantage. With the votes from the last state cand. B will have 1 poin more so he should win.

This seems fair to me. They are the UNITED States, so why shouldn't any vote from state X be valued equal to a vote from state Y?

This, every state gets three votes as a minimum (one for each senator, and one for their representative) regardless of population and size.

End result is larger states like Commifornia, Skype York, and even Texas have EC votes taken from them and redistributed to smaller statlets like... Idaho...

The Electoral college actually favours Republicans, desu. Not by a massive margin, but it is a slight edge.

Which is why most of the places where white people are (Not LA and SF) Are Republican or Libertaricucks :^)

State X is not equal to State Y, thus a vote from State X is not equal to a vote from State Y. We have a compromise between population concentration and equal state influence in Congress and the Electoral College.

> State X is not equal to State Y,

You mean that they're not equal in population? If yes, I don't see what's the problem. You vote for the president of US not for the president of your particular state. I know it sucks if 90% of population of your state voted for A, but B becomes president because overall he got more votes, but that seems fair.

Because all the white people have fled to the midwest.

Cool, if Hillary wins who the fuck cares

She will Die of illness before she even gets into office.

She looks like she has one foot out the door already, hope she has a fan cause it is hot in hell.

Never have I seen such weak bait. Sad!

if she dies the hydra will just grow back a new ahead just as terrible

Read up on tyranny of the majority to see the problems. A majority vote is not always fair. Direct Democracy only works in smaller populations for this reason.

How does this even works?

hillbag is going to have another stroke and lose her shoe again. Only this time she will fall down some stairs and break her hip.

Game over for that old liar. So I don't care how many maps you can manipulate, she is going to lose and probably croak before November.

Then it ignores the value of having states, as one state would essentially dictate the election.

>tyranny of the majority

I don't know, I don't think that voting for a president of a country in a direct democratic way can be described as tyranny of the majority. Voting for ... jews not to be allowed in universities would be a tyranny of the majority.

...

It would if 1 state would have 50% +1 of the population.
But each state can vote for local lows and shit.

This is why I find it unfair, usually to win a state you need to gain the majority even its 51%/49% if you win you get ALL OF IT when only 51% voted for you.

And because of the smaller states having more voting power than bigger states you can technically win with like 21% or something of the vote.

Ops map is a farce it doesnt make sense as the blue only has 55

Why can't they just count up the number of votes for each candidate and compare?

Holy shit.

Yea but how would the other 49 states have any federal say if one state controls who is in?

It absolutely can be tyranny if issues in low population states go ignored in favor of pandering to big city residents. Those states would have no influence to bargain for aid. Already they do have less, but it scales with diminishing returns to ensure they will still have a voice.

Is good idea yes?........

This is why we have a bad name here, just stay quiet mate.

sage

I don't understand. What is wrong? -_-

when the constitution was written the French Revolution was in full swing and had taken a great deal of inspiration from the american revolution, yet despite this most of the american elites were pretty shocked and horrified by just how far things went there. In order to prevent "the mob" from taking over they developed a number of methods of removing democracy from the hands of the people directly. One of them was the electoral college. The electors are chosen by the state, and they're the ones who select the president. By tradition they vote winner take all to whoever gets the majority in that state, but they aren't actually required to do so and could vote for whoever the fuck they want no matter what the popular vote is. (though this is never done)

As the other poster said, its an old system and should be replaced. I don't really know why its been kept as a bunch of other shit like it in the constitution was changed, senators used to be picked by state legislatures rather than elected directly, the vice president was originally the person who came in second in the presidential election.

It's a holdover from when voting results were sent in by carrier pigeon and horseback. It mad spence in 1830, but it's pretty outdated in (current year)

Called popular vote, and bad idea is bad

I started here a discussion about that

Its fucked up that Cali gets that many votes. I realize it's based on population, but all a candidate has to do is offer Californians some luxury, even if it destroys a few smaller states, and they're 20% of the way to Pennsylvania Ave.

If more than half voters in America like Trump then Trump should win because more want Trump

not a goy tho'

typically the electoral college is biased in favor of republicans since it gives an outsize amount of power to rural states with very small populations where republicans tend to do well

that's the real reason we can't get rid of this broken outdated shit, we'll have to wait until a republican wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote to see any change on it. They wont do shit while it benefits them.

That will likely never happen as there are more democrats than republicans. This is why news sites are already stating that it's plausible hillary win popular yet loses electoral this year

They do deserve a large advantage since something benefiting over 10% of the population has its merits. The most important virtue of the voting arrangement in America, imo, is that low population states can always still have influence because of the diminishing returns scaling created by a minimum of 2 senators, 1 representative, and electoral votes based on the sum of the two.

it obviously wouldn't and wasn't.

you now are informed Nixon and Reagan were California Republicans.

California has a bigger population by like at least 10 million
Texas is bigger geography wise, but it's more spread out. Excluding El Paso, there's nothing but small cities on the west half whilte the majority of the big cites or on the eastern side

>So many people treating this as a serious post

Texas is a red state you dumb fuck, it always comes out with electoral votes for Republicans.
swing states are literally the only ones that change up